D750 & Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 or D500 & Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 for Sports?
Oct 4, 2017 14:59:09 #
Do you think people who are after great prize winning sports shots are most worried about the noise/grain of the shot ?? Concerned ? yes - maybe, but most worried about GETTING the best action - IMO.
Oct 4, 2017 15:21:51 #
Having started to pay more attention to what the pros use during NFL games, they almost all seem to use huge white telephoto-like lenses and all use monopod, seemingly attached to the lens, not the camera. I don't recognize that as Nikon products at all.
Oct 4, 2017 15:27:00 #
Personally, I'd opt for the Sigma 120-300 Sports, as it's IMHO the best; if you can afford it, that is. At this time I cannot, but I've already made the decision to but it with the dedicated 1.4X. I could shoot these on my Canon 5D Mark III and 7D with superb IQ, I'm certain.
Oct 4, 2017 16:32:52 #
duffy021049 wrote:
the D750 does have flicker reduction
Not finding it in the manual other than for movie or live view.
Are you sure it has that option for stills?
Had my eye on the D750 for when I retire.
Oct 4, 2017 19:24:28 #
Thanks for all the comments! Good info! Still not sure what I'll do, but I'm think I leaning to the Sigma 120-300 to go with my D750... Thanks all - really appreciate your thoughts!
Oct 5, 2017 00:44:28 #
Acufine3200
Loc: Texarkana USA
I get to shoot HS football for fun--no ties to family, or publications. After years of shooting for pay, I'm enjoying the opportunity to experiment.
My go-to is the D750, and "for fun" last week I took along my wife's D7200. I left the 70-200/2.8 and 24-120/4.0 at home which limited me to primes (105/2.0DC, 180/2.8, 50/1.4), and the lower-end 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR.
Shooting in a smallish Texas Class 3-A stadium with only 4 light banks--two on each side of the field, the lighting was just less than adequate. Before digital I would have resorted to using the 180/2.8 with a flash at 800-1600 ASA. I set auto ISO at 6400, which is where both cameras landed for most of the shots. Both bodies have the auto flicker feature, along with the option of manually setting at 60, or 50 hz. I used auto, which was a bit of stretch since the lighting probably wasn't very stable. Regardless, all I got with the "in between" shots was about a 1/2 stop difference which caused only a slight color shift easily corrected in post production.
So, the outcome: Both bodies performed well enough to produce publishable shots. The D7200 seemed to have a noise pattern reminiscent of the old reticulated grain we would try for as a special effect with film. The D750 provided better facials within the helmets, and sharper features. Honestly, if the end result were online sports services the noise would not have been a factor. If for a print publication (newspaper) I would be a tad more selective just because I'm not sure how the interesting noise patterns would mix with a paper's dot-count. Depends on how old their press is. I'm providing a few samples with camera body/lens combos identified. No pp on any of the four except for cropping.
Now, to answer the OP's question...Definitely try to get your hands on the Sigma 120-300 instead of the D500. That lens is awesome. Again being old school, I don't depend a lot on "long reach" at HS football because the players generally bunch-up more than college or pros--it's a matter of skill level. Over 40-years of shooting has taught me the best shots are within the reach of about 100-200. But--But, there were several shots where my low-line 70-300 at 300 gave me fairly good result. Small school teams in Texas pass a lot more than they did a decade ago, so mid-field catches, and open tackles in that area are more common. Would loved to have had a 300 that could have gotten to 2.8-3.5 for those catches at midfield in between the light poles.
The D750's low-light capabilities can't be denied. You'll notice the D7200 examples are at ISO 5000...those at 6400 were too noisy.
Next week I'll probably take the 70-200 for the D750, and put the 180 on my D610. I keep reading how the 610's low light capabilities aren't that great, so it's time to perform a real world test.
My go-to is the D750, and "for fun" last week I took along my wife's D7200. I left the 70-200/2.8 and 24-120/4.0 at home which limited me to primes (105/2.0DC, 180/2.8, 50/1.4), and the lower-end 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR.
Shooting in a smallish Texas Class 3-A stadium with only 4 light banks--two on each side of the field, the lighting was just less than adequate. Before digital I would have resorted to using the 180/2.8 with a flash at 800-1600 ASA. I set auto ISO at 6400, which is where both cameras landed for most of the shots. Both bodies have the auto flicker feature, along with the option of manually setting at 60, or 50 hz. I used auto, which was a bit of stretch since the lighting probably wasn't very stable. Regardless, all I got with the "in between" shots was about a 1/2 stop difference which caused only a slight color shift easily corrected in post production.
So, the outcome: Both bodies performed well enough to produce publishable shots. The D7200 seemed to have a noise pattern reminiscent of the old reticulated grain we would try for as a special effect with film. The D750 provided better facials within the helmets, and sharper features. Honestly, if the end result were online sports services the noise would not have been a factor. If for a print publication (newspaper) I would be a tad more selective just because I'm not sure how the interesting noise patterns would mix with a paper's dot-count. Depends on how old their press is. I'm providing a few samples with camera body/lens combos identified. No pp on any of the four except for cropping.
Now, to answer the OP's question...Definitely try to get your hands on the Sigma 120-300 instead of the D500. That lens is awesome. Again being old school, I don't depend a lot on "long reach" at HS football because the players generally bunch-up more than college or pros--it's a matter of skill level. Over 40-years of shooting has taught me the best shots are within the reach of about 100-200. But--But, there were several shots where my low-line 70-300 at 300 gave me fairly good result. Small school teams in Texas pass a lot more than they did a decade ago, so mid-field catches, and open tackles in that area are more common. Would loved to have had a 300 that could have gotten to 2.8-3.5 for those catches at midfield in between the light poles.
The D750's low-light capabilities can't be denied. You'll notice the D7200 examples are at ISO 5000...those at 6400 were too noisy.
Next week I'll probably take the 70-200 for the D750, and put the 180 on my D610. I keep reading how the 610's low light capabilities aren't that great, so it's time to perform a real world test.
D750 70-300 ISO 6400 5.6-1/200
D750 180/2.8 ISO 6400 4.5-1/320
D7200 180/2.8 ISO 5000 4.5-1/400
D7200 180/2.8 ISO 5000 4.5-1/400
Oct 5, 2017 05:17:35 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Not finding it in the manual other than for movie or live view.
Are you sure it has that option for stills?
Had my eye on the D750 for when I retire.
Are you sure it has that option for stills?
Had my eye on the D750 for when I retire.
It's in the setup menu, page 380. I have mine set on auto.
Oct 5, 2017 05:37:19 #
tomglass wrote:
I have a Nikon D750 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 V... (show quote)
Tough choice. Maybe there will be something in these comparison links that will help.
(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://www.cameradecision.com/
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu
Oct 5, 2017 06:54:27 #
I use the 500 with the sigma and a 1.4 it's a great combo for sports. My sigma is the older version with sports your shutter speed eliminates the need for vr.
Oct 5, 2017 06:56:07 #
Oct 5, 2017 07:01:58 #
Flicker reduction doesn't time the lights flicker to shoot but it works perfectly.
Oct 5, 2017 07:41:22 #
mikeg492 wrote:
I use the 500 with the sigma and a 1.4 it's a great combo for sports. My sigma is the older version with sports your shutter speed eliminates the need for vr.
Nice avatar - good color.
Oct 5, 2017 08:31:40 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
tomglass wrote:
I have a Nikon D750 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 V... (show quote)
The D500 was built for sports. It has the same guts for focusing as the D5 but for $4500 less. I have the D500 with the 70-200 lens. It is very, very, very, very fast. I use group auto focusing and my keep rate is nearly 98%, unbelievable, I am very pleased and happy with my combo. That said my favorite sports lens is the 200-500 but it lacks the speed of my new 70-200 for indoor shooting.
Oct 5, 2017 08:59:52 #
duffy021049 wrote:
It's in the setup menu, page 380. I have mine set on auto.
That's the page I referenced.
Says "during live view or movie recording".
May have to "settle" for a D500...
Oct 5, 2017 17:21:37 #
Hi
Not sure what all has been written here, however since I own & use both the D750 and the D500, including the 70-200 2.8, VR 2 along with a whole lot of other lens, I would undoubtedly recommend the D500 x 70-200 combo.
I cover a lot of pro football (read as asia soccer) from the sidelines for some top national clubs & the D500 has been spot on in terms of focussing in low light.
The D500 has been my 'go to' camera for a year now & the only time I use the D750 is for parties & other events.
I'm not sure if people make comparisons by only reading articles online or actually getting out in the field and shooting frames. But my best buy has been the D500.
The D750 is also a great camera, but the focussing in very low light is NOT always spot on.
You do NOT need a full frame anymore. With the D500, what you see in your viewfinder is what you get in your image without any loss of edges in the frame.
If you still doubt FX vs DX....... check out this link.
https://petapixel.com/2017/10/03/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-shootout-can-tell-difference/
Test the D500 and then decide what would you be more comfortable / confident shooting.
Good luck with your choice.
Not sure what all has been written here, however since I own & use both the D750 and the D500, including the 70-200 2.8, VR 2 along with a whole lot of other lens, I would undoubtedly recommend the D500 x 70-200 combo.
I cover a lot of pro football (read as asia soccer) from the sidelines for some top national clubs & the D500 has been spot on in terms of focussing in low light.
The D500 has been my 'go to' camera for a year now & the only time I use the D750 is for parties & other events.
I'm not sure if people make comparisons by only reading articles online or actually getting out in the field and shooting frames. But my best buy has been the D500.
The D750 is also a great camera, but the focussing in very low light is NOT always spot on.
You do NOT need a full frame anymore. With the D500, what you see in your viewfinder is what you get in your image without any loss of edges in the frame.
If you still doubt FX vs DX....... check out this link.
https://petapixel.com/2017/10/03/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-shootout-can-tell-difference/
Test the D500 and then decide what would you be more comfortable / confident shooting.
Good luck with your choice.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.